Trudeau says he’s not interested in a coalition. Don’t believe him.

So here’s where we are on the pre-election coalition non-debate: Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says he’d be open to a governing coalition with the New Democrats — but not while Tom Mulcair is NDP leader. So yes, but also no.

Trudeau is stepping carefully, mindful of his predecessors’ struggles with the coalition concept. During the 2008 election campaign, Stéphane Dion rejected an alliance with the NDP: “We cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging for the economy. Period.” Two months later he changed his mind, launching a coalition bid that failed when Dion was driven from the leadership after Stephen Harper was permitted to prorogue Parliament.

As the 2011 campaign got underway, Michael Ignatieff first said he would not enter a coalition with the NDP — then stepped back just far enough to describe coalition government as a “legitimate constitutional option”.

So it’s a good idea to take any Liberal leader’s repudiation of coalition government with a whopping great grain of salt. Right now Trudeau is firmly focused on the election, not the likely aftermath. Given his current standing in the polls, that’s natural: He’s running to win, not place.

But after the election, the composition of the government will be decided by an electorate of 338 — the members of the House of Commons — and the incentives change radically. If the Liberals are in second place in terms of seat count, but could — with the support of the NDP — form a government, their qualms about cooperating with the NDP will melt away.

My current seat projections give the Conservatives a slight advantage in seats over the Liberals in recent polls — but both parties would fall well short of a majority. Those same polls also report strong third party support for the New Democrats, who would control between 18 to 25 per cent of the seats post-election. On average the Bloc and Greens together would control no more than 2 per cent of Commons; they’re not likely to be a factor in the formation of the next government.

Almost all of the seat projections I’ve made on the basis of polls dating back to June 2013 predict a Commons where the Liberals and NDP combined control a majority of seats.

The Liberals must confront the fact that — as long as they can’t get past the polling ceiling that keeps them from a majority — they’re going to have to deal with the NDP. Should the NDP make gains and get past the Liberals, the incentives would switch from one party to another — but the overall dynamic would remain the same. In recent weeks the NDP’s share of seats based on current polling has been rising, so one shouldn’t rule out the possibility of them seizing the initiative away from the Liberals and becoming the dominant actor in any coalition negotiations.

Almost all of the seat projections I’ve made on the basis of polls dating back to June 2013 predict a Commons where the Liberals and NDP combined control a majority of seats. Even if the Liberals finish first, current projections say they can only form a majority with the support of either the NDP or Harper’s Conservatives.

The last time the Liberals had to govern as a minority with the support of the NDP was right after the 1972 election. While a recent Forum poll suggests Canadians support the idea of a coalition government in principle, an Environics poll conducted last year suggests they would be much more comfortable if the dominant party in that coalition finished the election in first place.

But even if the Conservatives finish first this year, their lack of an obvious coalition partner suggests they face the likelihood of a short-duration minority government like the one formed by the re-elected Diefenbaker Progressive Conservatives in 1962-63 — which lasted less than a year.

It’s worth looking at the experience of the 1972-1974 Liberal minority government, which was propped up by the NDP. The Liberal two-seat advantage coming out of the election was a key factor in the NDP’s decision to sustain them in power. Fast-forward to 1985 and the Ontario provincial election, which gave the Liberals the most votes but the PCs four more seats; the outcome was a Liberal-NDP accord and coalition government.

There is nothing unnatural or outré about coalition government. They happen. The media has convinced itself — and politicians — that it’s dangerous to mention coalition government during a campaign. But in the final analysis it comes down to simple math — and the numbers don’t lie.

Paul Barber is a retired former public servant and journalist. He worked for the governments of Ontario and Manitoba, mainly in intergovernmental relations, and as a TV current affairs documentary producer in Winnipeg and for the program The Journal in Toronto. He offers his opinions on politics and media at the blog: tcnorris.blogspot.com

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

Imagine two parties cooperating and compromising to build a consensus and establish policy to make Canada a better country! What a novel idea. I’d support such a cooperative approach and any partnership of two parties willing to participate.

Well, not ANY two parties. In my vision, the Cons need to be absolutely shut out – sorry! :) And the Bloc are largely irrelevant, so that really leaves 3 parties, and perhaps a couple of independents, who probably want to remain so.

Israel, German and the UK have working coalition governments. For Canadians to believe they don’t work is totally ‘backwards’ which tells you that it is the toxic Tory’s message. They toxic Tory’s like the past better than the present or the future and have been slowly, painfully, turning the wheels of Canada backwards as fast as they can and at the same time emptying the Treasury so it cannot be fixed when they are booted. Coalition is the answer unless of course the NDP swing upwards and take over.

In one of Israel’s coalitions, Tzipi Livni won the most seats, but Netanyahu pulled together a bunch of smaller parties and became government, not that I like him, but that’s the way it’s allowed to work in the system.
Steve had no problem with it, he only has problems with it in Canada… in fact, he has problems with most institutions in Canada.
He was always like that, but since so many fear him, his opinion gets a megaphone instead of being lost in the crowd.

Actually Yeti, Harper the hypocrite didn’t have an issue with forming a coalition in 2004.

After Mr. Harper lost to Paul Martin in 2004, he entered into a ‘governing agreement’ with Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe to avoid another general election should the Martin government fall quickly. This agreement was formal enough for the 3 party leaders to propose this option in a letter to the GG at time, Ms. Clarkson.

Yes I should have said he has problems with it in Canada only if it doesn’t favour him as top dog.
I was just watching this and it’s exactly what you just said.
I remember Gilles Duceppe calling him a liar for denying any of it because it deterred from his script during the last election.

Until this country changes it’s voting system to produce results that are more representative of what Canadians want, and (just as important) don’t want, coalitions have to become a plausible possibility now. Even getting rid of first past the post, that would be the case.

Voting patterns have changed too much. Things were simpler before where it was only the two older parties federally, with the NDP having just enough support to influence Liberal policies, but never enough to prevent them from forming government. Those days aren’t coming back, and we even have a Green party now that’s growing in support. I’ve seen them at 9% federally more than once and they just took a seat in PEI last night for the first time.

Any one who thinks that things will “return to normal” needs to check out the new Alberta highway signs that will be up in a few weeks as you’re driving in—“Welcome to the socialist workers’ paradise of Alberta.”

Don’t disagree with the analysis, but two statements leap out as being not quite true:
1) “The last time the Liberals had to govern as a minority with the support of the NDP was right after the 1972 election.” Unless you discount the Paul Martin minority of 2004-5 on the basis that the Liberal plus NDP seat total still didn’t equal a majority.
2) “Fast-forward to 1985 and the Ontario provincial election, which gave the Liberals the most votes but the PCs four more seats; the outcome was a Liberal-NDP accord and coalition government.” Most definitions of “coalition government” require that the Executive Branch (i.e., “the government”) contain members of the partner parties. This was not the case in Ontario from 1985-1990. The NDP made demands on the government, and the price of NDP support was that those demands be addressed in the Speech from the Throne and the Budget (and subsequent legislation). But the NDP did not hold any Cabinet positions. In this respect, it differed little from the federal Liberal-NDP arrangement following the 1972 election. Pierre Trudeau [demonstrating that he was much less afraid of a tough adversary (David Lewis) than is his son (Thomas Mulcair)] accepted a number of NDP demands as the “price” of staying in office. They just didn’t write it down and call it an “Accord.” But the effect was the same.

A gentleman’s agreement would make it simpler for sure. In the event of a small Harper minority the Liberals and NDP could simply agree that the Liberals would be the governing party, assuming they have more seats than the NDP. Mulcair would guarantee to prop them up for x period of time (possibly the whole 4 years) in exchange for a certain amount of NDP legislation of course. There would be no New Democrats officially in government but it would be a coalition without the name.

It may not be his decision. If the Caucus voted on it and they agreed to it, he is bound to present that as Liberal policy. Of course we don’t know and anybody who does can’t talk about it.

Back in the days following 9-11, Chrétien was unable to fly to Washington as a gesture of support because the House had required that he attend a late night take-note debate. When discussing this with USAians, they took the view that he was being rude. and snubbing them. I explained that he was under orders from the House of Commons to remain until the debate was done but they didn’t understand even the concept or that he was in the end just another MP who sat at the pleasure of the House.

“he was in the end just another MP who sat at the pleasure of the House.” I hope that day will return! Good analysis. I do feel this morning that I no longer have free speech and must curtail my criticisms of the government. That is not a nice or Canadian feeling.

If that what it takes to defeat Harper, then I hope the Liberals and NDP will cooperate to make that happen. Harper is a destructive force for Canada and for our country to regain its moral and high standing at home as well as in the world, we need a new government for the people, by the people, unlike the Harper rule that imposes his own myopic, mean, narrow-minded views, always in search for a new angle to entice a vote.

Coalitions are part of our system of government.
The people afraid to talk about them are a lot more scared than the public.
Again, amazing the amount of fear people have of crossing Harper.
Is he God sitting on a throne with lightning bolts?
I wish someone out there would be a leader instead of a weather vane.
Sorry for re-posting this, but Harper even knows coalitions are okay, but isn’t for them unless he’s in it because of his moral superiority.

Coalition governments with the loosing parties is just wrong – it’s just not Canadian. Even everywhere around the world the coalition governments happen with the party with the most votes with a hand in government. Hopefully for good of the country the Governor General would reject a coalition of losers.

Don – you may want to learn a little more about how Westminster parliamentary democracies work.

Here in Canada we elect Parliaments, not governments.

But don’t just take my word on how I think our democracy works, how governments are formed in Canada, or what the ‘rules’ are regarding coalitions – how about this interpretation from Procedure and Protocols, on parl.gc.ca ( http://tinyurl.com/mhm26wy ):

The Governor General also enjoys certain prerogative or discretionary powers.One of the duties of the Governor General is to choose the Prime Minister. The individual selected must be someone who is willing to form a government and seek the confidence of the House of Commons. By convention, this is the leader of the political party that has won a majority of seats in the House of Commons in a general election. Where no party is given a majority, the defeated Ministry may choose to stay in office until defeated in the House, or it may resign. If it resigns, the Governor General will ask the leader of the opposition party most likely to enjoy the confidence of the House to form a government. However, it is still correct to refer to the Governor General’s prerogative or discretionary powers in appointing a Prime Minister, subject to the selection being confirmed in the House of Commons, as this remains one of the few decisions the Governor General makes without ministerial advice.

You may also be interested in reading the response to the question ‘is a coalition government legal and does it fit within the Canadian concept of democracy’, posted by the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta posted on its blog (http://www.law-faqs.org/wiki/i…

Throughout its history, Canada has been shaped by compromises – from both side of the ideological spectrum.

A coalition government is permitted under our Westminster Parliamentary democracy.

And please don’t forget, in 2004 Mr. Harper entered into a ‘governing agreement’ (his name for it) with Jack Layton’s NDP and Gilles Duceppe’s Bloc Québecois should the Martin minority government fall quickly after the election. The ‘coalition’ was formal enough that the 3 party leaders reminded GG Clarkson of the option (naming a coaltion to govern) at the time in a letter, to avoid another general election.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the times when Canadian governments have done things of which Canadians are proud, such as Medicare for all, have been times when there was a coalition government of the Liberals and the NDP.